Now that the dust is settling from last weekend’s AI freakout, we are hearing from opposing voices. From my vantage point, I think there are good points on both sides and regardless of whether some of the more breathless predictions of doom may be off, we need more oversight and regulation. Our government just isn’t keeping up on this issue.
Andrew Sharp echoes Cal Newport in characterizing the people from the industry whose voices seem to be the most shrill.
We ought to normalize treating the frontier AI community as fringe activists who are sometimes right but often wrong. We’re several generations past the era in which the tech frontier was led by a preacher’s son and varsity athlete like Bob Noyce, or by a rakish Buddhist hippie like Steve Jobs; today’s AI leaders are jittery and off-putting and profoundly secular. They should be understood as zealous ideologues with high IQs and limited experience with the world beyond San Francisco’s tech industry and particularly the echo chamber of its AI industry. They have their own spectrum of social and financial incentives, and most importantly, they are not scientific authorities worthy of deference by default.
Sharp even references Cal Newport’s NYT piece in his writing. He also breaks down the realistic chances for some of the more hyperbolic claims (around subjects like bioterrorism) and the confirmation bias that may be driving them.
